Page 9 of 30 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 293

Thread: 10 Years

  1. #81

    Default

    Oh and clubsprint in5years time i will be a well know and respeted dog trainer
    And i can granintee that rigth now
    If you are reading this then you're doing just fine as to
    I'm not going to tell ya I lost the ' , . ? ! " Keys to my head
    No grammar no problem I don't know how to fly it any way Bye

  2. #82

    Default

    Club you whant to see why pit bulls a dan dogs
    Whach this movie to will see it not a prtty site
    Man did this to make the dog kill
    PITBULLS AND THE HUMAN EFFECT 2011 Australia - YouTube
    Last edited by ruby mc nugget; 09-18-2011 at 06:24 PM.
    If you are reading this then you're doing just fine as to
    I'm not going to tell ya I lost the ' , . ? ! " Keys to my head
    No grammar no problem I don't know how to fly it any way Bye

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Ok so I guess I'm going to join the unpopular list as well because I too believe that 10 years is a reasonable punishment for the owner of a dog that has killed a human.
    Must say pretty disappointed with the whole gang mentality around here towards someone with a difference of opinion. You see the "thanks button " being used as like a show of strength rather than a compliment for a constructive post.
    Personally have read this from start to finish I can't really see where clubsprint went wrong other than having a difference of opinion????
    As you know I'm the owner of a large breed dog in excess of 70 kg that could no doubt do some damage if it wanted. It's my responsibility to make sure that this never happens and now as it stands I will be punished if he does. I'm sure like all sentencing the facts will play a big part in sentences.
    I'm sure you understand that laws are usually created after events of concern happen, if you think a government can sit on thier hands and let the death of a child go by with no reaction then im not sure where your living. Clearly a child being mauled to death in her family home Is issue for concern????
    Last edited by peter70; 09-17-2011 at 11:34 PM.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Peter i agree with you that something had to be done, but i also still say that each case should be considered as an individual case on its own and not a panic attack on a particular dog breed. Because what starts as taking on one breed will progress to other breeds. And especially a breed like yours may be in danger in the future. Government/council laws tend to progress like that. It has happened with where dogs are allowed to go and not now. It will happen with breeds of dogs. All breeds bred for Guard or bite work may in the future suffer from the same laws. If the owner has shown negligence or mistreatment (causing aggression) or trained for aggression, I feel that ten years jail is no problem at all. Because the dog has become a weapon. But to generalise is dangerous.
    I too have very large dogs, should my dogs (who are extremely well socialized and presently very friendly and obedience trained) have some incident where they did attack someone. Would that mean that i would just land in jail for ten years. Each case should be considered and taken on its own merits. Each dog as an individual, not breed. All aggressive dogs should be managed, not breed. Even small dogs, such as a Maltese should not allowed to be aggressive. there have been cases of small dogs killing small children in Europe. So I think we should manage aggressive dogs and their owners. It is wrong to have an aggressive dog of any breed and they should be contained/managed according to some laws.
    I also agree that something has to be done, but it needs to be thought out and not done in a knee jerk reaction.
    Pets are forever

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    I think if it only applied to owners of dogs that were already declared dangerous, that would make some sense. If a fatal dog attack was clearly the result of irresponsible behaviour of the owner, I would not have a problem with this either. I think the issue that most here struggle with is if restricted breed owners would be treated differently than other breed owners under this law.

    Peter, the member you are defending has been posting only in threads on BSL and my personal observation is that they have been deliberately antagonising everyone for some reason. So unfortunately I personally find it hard to be objective anymore when reading their posts. I did try to have a discussion with them but found that they consistently ignored the logical arguments that were offered and only responded to the weaker and the emotive ones. Which is probably why now most of the responses to his posts are motivated by emotions rather than logic! It evolved over quite a few different threads. They are in fact on my ignore list because I thought it was better to not respond than to have another thread like this, which would look rather unfair to someone who did not follow the evolution of our dislike of this member. And if you don't have anything nice to say...
    Last edited by Beloz; 09-18-2011 at 07:06 AM.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    I did say in my post that I think sentencing would still vary depending on facts.
    Newfie this is about your dog KILLING someone not just biting them, so yes if your dog does this in my opinion I think you should be jailed, sorry but that's how I feel. Again "facts" would play a big part in my mind regards to how much time in jail if any, was it a burglar in your yard, did your dog escape etc......
    If Neo's were being found responsible here for a number of "DEATHS" then regardless of my love for the breed I would be reconsidering maybe changing breeds as a way of minimizing my risk.
    Whilst i respect owners of all breeds I will ask this to the pitbull owners but for all your claims against the media beatup why has your breed been chosen over all others? Did the media pick a name out of the hat or has there been reason for concern?
    With all the dogs I have had throughout my 40 years I have unfortunately had to only put one down due to biting, this being a small Shepard X. She bit two kids my own age at the time and we could no longer trust her.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Well Beloz I was only reading this post when I wrote that so I was struggling to see a problem with clubsprint's stance, in fact the only problem I could see was his difference of opinion on the matter.
    I have personally made it no secret either that I share little if any love for pitbulls, that's not saying that I don't respect thier owners right to choose.
    My opinion on them has always stemmed from the fact that a majority of owners " I have met" seemed to be ****hed males in thier 20's looking for a penis extension.

  8. #88

    Default

    The number of attacks leading to fatalities caused by the breed in question in the last 32 years is Two.

    While one is too many, there are too many other factors. No breed should be persecuted and IF these laws were for all dog owners regardless of breed I'd be happy about it. They are not. They are for those who own restricted breeds or already declared dangerous dogs.

    Yep, and these laws restricting them and illegalising them only serve to make them more appealing to that type...

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peter70 View Post
    Whilst i respect owners of all breeds I will ask this to the pitbull owners but for all your claims against the media beatup why has your breed been chosen over all others? Did the media pick a name out of the hat or has there been reason for concern?
    I am fairly new to this debate, but I did read the research and stats that was offered in other threads on this subject (and verified they were from reliable sources) and had to conlcude that the media accusations are not based on facts. APBTs are not responsible for the majority of fatal dog attacks nor dog bit incidents.

    I think the reason why people perceive them as a risk is because unfortunately they will attract more irresponsible owners because of the history of the breed.

    That is just my interpretation though.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern NSW
    Posts
    3,784

    Default

    Peter.......But you are putting in "facts would play a big part" and that is where i fully agree. I just do not agree with a just "dog kills, owner put in jail". I think we all pretty much agree with the same thing.
    I also personally would never own a Pitt-bull, but i have met some lovely ones. And I do see the reason why the Governments and media have picked on the Pitt-bull. It is historical, bred for fighting and such that put it out there. BUT......Do you sometimes notice the type of person that has these dogs (not all, I will get flamed her). So I again will say the owners are responsible and each case should be taken on its merits.
    I will give you one example of whey the law concerns me. I have a Dog trainer friend who has five dogs, of which two fit the "picture" of the Dangerous dog law. She has to register them as such by the end of September. even though she is almost 100% sure they do not have an inkling of Pitt-bull in them. But they have "the look". He dogs are very friendly, social and roam in the Seminars amongst all the people and dogs. Is it fir that her dogs now have to be contained and possibly wear muzzles, because of the new laws. And I know this is going off the ten year jail part, but it is all part of it.
    She too would PTS a dog if it was aggressive and uncontrollable as would I.
    As I said before the aggressive dog should not be tolerated and allowed to do what it wants, but the new laws affect way too many dogs that are not even part of the breed or have no aggression at all. people should be held responsible for their dog, but sometimes things can also just happen......Anyway we are all just expressing our own feelings. And presently we still have the right to do so. We probably all pretty much agree that what happened was awful and something has to be done for it not to happen again........Just as to what and how?
    Pets are forever

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •